Thanks for the links. I actually read Eckhart Tolle before, it was a few years ago. There were many useful things in his book, but occasionally I also found things which I didn't quite agree with. It's not that I saw anything 'bad', not at all, but it just wasn't for me. Perhaps I have been far too J.K. brainwashed, hehehe (I know I sometimes am, which is a real danger)

I do believe that there are many teachers around who do help others, it's not that there is an outright 'right' and 'wrong'. For some people I see that organised religion can help them, the routines and temples brings them a moment where they can step out of their normal life and take a break. It's not something for me, but some people aren't ready for that. We are all at different stages and who is to know who is further on than others.

Largely disagree with some of eckhart's fundamental assertions, but think his practical advice is so excellent that I deeply appreciate his work. I have no doubt that either eckahrt, nisargaddata, or K have had the experience.

Originally Posted by grikoo'word is not the thing' is itself a technique, and a valid one.

Likewise, I'm skeptical of such positions. Wanting someone to experientially investigate the human condition is one thing (and again valid), but refusing to explain it clearly on those grounds is suspicious. It's like saying, 'Let me mislead you in order to show you the truth'.

Yes I agree, those two books are definitely near the top of my list as well, at least as far as vedantic philosophy goes. Though you should also read Nisargadattas last book 'consciousness and the absolute' as he changes some of his opinions later in life. The changes allow for a fundamentally different interpretation.

Garfield's commentary very clearly details the buddhist response to vedantic philosophy. It's a hard read at times, but well worth the effort. Garfield though, intentionally does not extend the arguments beyond the intent of Nagarjuna's original, which while admirable in one sense, is a shame in another. This is probably at the top of my list of books on eastern philosophy, after having read on the subject for over 20 years.

I would consider it (Teaching) more as a sign-post rather than a technique. He is not misleading anybody. If the teaching can be handed out, so to speak, there would be many more finders..

I am yet to read that work from Maharaj. He was fond of saying that 'I am that' was for the beginners and the essence of his teachings are in Books like 'Ultimate medicine' etc...Moreover, as you might have noticed, 'I am that' is a collection of talks given to various people ( With varying degrees of awareness ), it would be next to impossible to provide consistent replies.

Enlightened people never changed the world. Of course, they don't have to. I always wanted to ask - is enlightenment desirable? Enlightenment is not the culmination of a logical thought. It's an inevitable result of spiritual progression in a certain direction. But how do I know that it is desirable?

Originally Posted by grikooYes, I think all phenomena can be clearly explained.

Yes, I think K did not, in general, speak very clearly. But like I said, good points here and there.

It's one thing to have an experience, a completely different one to understand it well enough to explain it to someone else. Without a good understanding of psychology and philosophy, it's really not possible. The best they can do is to teach you techniques for likewise having the experience, but again, that doesn't convey an intellectual understanding of it. This is an unfortunate problem in the human condition, as it tends to lead to some kooky 'philosophies' over time. What's ironic is that even the kooky philosophies can produce results, at least any that convey techiniques within the philosophical construct. It can easily turn into a self perpetuating cycle of disinformation and misunderstanding.

This is a very important issue in my opinion, as I think the experience itself tends to be a bit misleading. It's easy to draw conclusions from it that aren't really accurate.

No offense taken.

For me, the experience and the interpretation of it (understanding, by your words)are 2 unrelated things. In other words, the search for meaning is a subjective exercise based on what you already know. Direct experience is something living. It doesn't need interpreting.

It seems you value knowledge, which in my opinion, is a 2nd hand memory of what was once alive. All this analysis is a delusion we are all caught up in. Perhaps we have moments where we see how caught up we are in ourselves. But, no real understanding or knowledge is possible or necessary.

JK's 'message' was to stop seeking. His 'method', 'choiceless awareness' is not something that can be practiced. If you practice anything, it is dead, just a repetition of the experiences you've already had.

For me, there is so much nonsense that passes for 'spiritual teachings'. There might be some hope when you get to the point of throwing all these books and teachers into the garbage heap.

Enlightened people never changed the world. Of course, they don't have to. I always wanted to ask - is enlightenment desirable? Enlightenment is not the culmination of a logical thought. It's an inevitable result of spiritual progression in a certain direction. But how do I know that it is desirable?

The fact is you don't know what it is. Plus, your questions create a division inside of you from what you know and don't know. The desire to understand is itself a dilemma. It's your brain thinking, thinking, thinking. That's all that's going on. Look at the world without your brain interpreting it. Can you do that? Please get back to us if you can!!

As to K- I'm naturally a bit skeptical of anyone that doesn't speak clearly, and think that while there are many many many experientially 'enlightened' people around, few have the philosophical understanding to make sense of those experiences.

QUOTE]

Is it that JK didn't speak clearly or that people didn't listen clearly?

I think people who have a deep serious interest in what JK was saying can understand perfectly well what he was getting at, the only difficulty is whether they can be bothered to look at "What Is" Choicelessly,for themselves rather than relying on JK to do all the work on their behalf.

Originally Posted by ScandojazzbuffThe fact is you don't know what it is. Plus, your questions create a division inside of you from what you know and don't know. The desire to understand is itself a dilemma. It's your brain thinking, thinking, thinking. That's all that's going on. Look at the world without your brain interpreting it. Can you do that? Please get back to us if you can!!

When I meditate, I don't think or interpret anything. My spirit gets into a deep state, but I know that's not enlightenment.

I read JK, and I know what you are getting at. I am just humbly asking my question. Rather, I always ask myself. Why am I attracted to spirituality? Isn't it just a conditioning - most respectable people in the world say they believe in god or they are spiritual, so I feel inferior if I don't. Of course I don't explicitly think in this way, but isn't this the underlying psychological mechanism that draws me into spiritualism?

Is it desirable to be enlightened? Isn't it possible to establish humanism, or globalism without resorting to spirituality? Isn't it time for me to wake up and abandon spiritualism?

Originally Posted by SailawayI read JK, and I know what you are getting at. I am just humbly asking my question. Rather, I always ask myself. Why am I attracted to spirituality? Isn't it just a conditioning - most respectable people in the world say they believe in god or they are spiritual, so I feel inferior if I don't. Of course I don't explicitly think in this way, but isn't this the underlying psychological mechanism that draws me into spiritualism?

Is it desirable to be enlightened? Isn't it possible to establish humanism, or globalism without resorting to spirituality? Isn't it time for me to wake up and abandon spiritualism?

Disclaimer: I am not enlightened, either.

For me, That would be the only sane way to live, rather than lead my life with all the thoughts which come and go, without any rhyme or reason, being burdened with hopes and fears ( Most of which, never happen), thinking about the past, worrying about the future, when knowing fully well that all of this is just 'old memories'.

Just my 2 cents. There are people on IM, who can answer your question with more clarity than i ever can.

Originally Posted by SailawayWhen I meditate, I don't think or interpret anything. My spirit gets into a deep state, but I know that's not enlightenment.

I read JK, and I know what you are getting at. I am just humbly asking my question. Rather, I always ask myself. Why am I attracted to spirituality? Isn't it just a conditioning - most respectable people in the world say they believe in god or they are spiritual, so I feel inferior if I don't. Of course I don't explicitly think in this way, but isn't this the underlying psychological mechanism that draws me into spiritualism?

Is it desirable to be enlightened? Isn't it possible to establish humanism, or globalism without resorting to spirituality? Isn't it time for me to wake up and abandon spiritualism?

I don't know what enlightenment is. I don't know what spirituality is. I don't even know who I is. Beats me why you are drawn into spiritualism. Cute girls? Slower heart rate? Wanting to be a good boy? Unhappy with yourself? This is something for you to find out not to be asking others. How can someone answer your questions?

Originally Posted by ScandojazzbuffI don't know what enlightenment is. I don't know what spirituality is. I don't even know who I is. Beats me why you are drawn into spiritualism. Cute girls? Slower heart rate? Wanting to be a good boy? Unhappy with yourself? This is something for you to find out not to be asking others. How can someone answer your questions?

Originally Posted by batistutaFor me, That would be the only sane to live, rather than lead my life with all the thoughts which come and go, without any rhyme or reason, being burdened with hopes and fears ( Most of which, never happen), thinking about the past, worrying about the future, when knowing fully well that all of this is just 'old memories'.

Thanks batistuta, that makes some sense. After all, unlike other animals, we humans have a lot of brain areas that are not directly connected to sensorimotor areas. Maybe enlightenment is an epiphenomenon of the human evolution: a runaway prefrontal cortex .

Disclaimer- I may or may not be enlightened, and couldn't answer the the question either way myself. We are exactly what we are, whether or not we recognize it. As I don't think the term implies a change of state, I can only assume it implies a different understanding of our normal state.

Here's my take on the experiential part-

Through various methods the symbol forming mechanism of the mind comes to a halt. This results in the cessation of consciousness and cognition. This is the 'I am' state that nisargaddata is so fond of. However, he clearly points out that this is not the 'end' state.

If this practice is continued regularly, a more subtle change occurs eventually. The part of the mind that isolates and compartmentalizes reality, which underlies the symbol forming capacity, stops. When this happens fully, the mind no longer sees 'things' independently and is no longer able to differentiate between the subject and object. The senses experience a unified field of sensation- pure, unadulterated awareness. In this state, the 'I' ceases completely, though awareness continues.

While this is a very profound experience in one way, i.e. the direct experience of 'oneness', it is also a very mundane experience. Your world doesn't change. 'You' don't really change. All that changes is your outlook on those phenomena. Your 'identity' changes only because you see it more acurately. All in all, it's not that different.

Is it a worthwhile endeavor? I'm not really sure. In my experience, I found it rather mundane and un-surprising (though profound to be sure). It was like a recognition of what was always there to begin with. Really a moment if anything!

And after all is said and done, it IS just an experience, and just as ephemeral as all other experiences. When the body dies and sensation goes away, awareness and experience likely go with it. It's hard to put a value on something like that. In one sense it's priceless, and in another perhaps a bit meaningless.

Now how you interpret that experience is quite another thing....and there are ALL manner of ways to do so......most of which create a bunch of philosophical incoherencies. However, I think it is only important to understand those issues if you plan to teach, and specifically if you plan to write books to a wide range of people. Clarity is extremely important in that situation. Otherwise it really doesn't matter what you think about it.

ps....For me at least, it was exactly the cute girls that led to this whole train of thought in the first place......but that's a story for another time.....

Originally Posted by SailawayI read JK, and I know what you are getting at. I am just humbly asking my question. Rather, I always ask myself. Why am I attracted to spirituality? Isn't it just a conditioning - most respectable people in the world say they believe in god or they are spiritual, so I feel inferior if I don't. Of course I don't explicitly think in this way, but isn't this the underlying psychological mechanism that draws me into spiritualism?

Is it desirable to be enlightened? Isn't it possible to establish humanism, or globalism without resorting to spirituality? Isn't it time for me to wake up and abandon spiritualism?

Hi Sailaway, I can only answer for myself and what caused me to get into spiritualism... I guess it was seeing that I was essentially brainwashed in one way or other by the society around me, this bothers me and I want to see if it's possible to be completely uninfluenced by it.

I probably lean more towards Sailaway's sentiment. I think it's high time that we do away with the religiosity and metaphysical gobbledygook that has plagued our attempts at understanding for so long.

It would be much better to simply expose the nature of the human condition in a non-symbolic, non-religious, non-metaphysical, and non-spiritual way, thus allowing for a coherent understanding of our experience.